I've been experimenting with atg squats and it's seem like the only way I can get down there is to shift my weight forward on the anterior part of my foot. I keep my shoe heels on the ground but the actual heel of my foot elevates inside my shoe. Also I seem to have to slack my hamstrings as well. Anyways, it seems like most of the people I see on youtube videos claiming to atg squat do this also so I'm wondering if most of us are just anatomically designed to squat to parallel "range" because when I and others keep our weight balance over the entire foot, we stop around parallel.

I guess I'm just sick of hearing people say we should all full squat because toddlers and people on East can do it. I find it funny though, most of the time you see people in a full squat position outside the weight room, their lower back is rounded which is fine with no weight, but I'll be damned if I do it loaded:)

Crow wrote:I always thought the term "full squat" means to go just "below parallel". (and atg squats were going even deeper, so that these are an "increased version" of the full squat)

The nsca describes parallel as the stopping point but all these crossfit gyms and internet gurus all preaching full.

Well... As I recall Starting Strength 3rd Ed., for example, doesn`t say atg- and full-squats are the same. So whats exactly your problem? Just go as deep as you can without risking your health, work on your mobility, if needed, and be content when you go just below parallel.

It depends on your point of reference. To a Powerlifter (like Rippetoe) , parallel is a full squat. To a Crossfitter or a weightlifter, full squats are much deeper. To be consistent, we should use the terminology used on this site, in which case, a full squat is closer to a weightlifting squat, or as it says on the Full Squat page, "knees and hips are fully bent." http://exrx.net/WeightExercises/Quadric ... Squat.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Parallel is the minimum required depth for a squat. Anything above parallel is a partial (half squat, quarter squat, etc.) and shouldn't count as a squat.

The term "Full Squat" generally refers to a full range-of-motion squat. That means going all the way down until you're just about sitting on your heels. However, most lifters lack the flexibility to do this safely with a barbell on their back.

Parallel is fine for bodybuilding, powerlifting or sports performance. It's really only Olympic lifters who NEED to full squat.

I noticed that my atg squatting has changed the way I bicycle uphill. Previously I would climb simply by using my quads to push the pedals. Now I'm feeling my ass has kicked in too as I position my body feeling almost as if I were squatting low.

Yes, it's bad form. When you go that deep you will round your lower back to keep your balance and complete the range of motion. That's bad form and exposes your lumbar spine to enormous pressure and potential injury. Some people bounce at the bottom, which makes it even more dangerous.

"Yes, it's bad form. When you go that deep you will round your lower back to keep your balance and complete the range of motion. That's bad form and exposes your lumbar spine to enormous pressure and potential injury. Some people bounce at the bottom, which makes it even more dangerous." - Drake Van Steed

Not necessarily. It's possible to full squat without rounding. Olympic lifters do it all the time on squats (back, front and overhead), cleans and snatches. However, it does require better than average hip mobility.

By the way, I think most people underestimate how deep parallel really is. For example, I've met a number of lifters who think a 90-degree knee bend is parallel, when really it's more like a half squat.